Going Backwards

“As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out, despite claims that strong standards were too difficult to achieve, automakers have in fact exceeded their regulatory targets, developing technologies – including improved compression ratios, more efficient engines, eight- and nine-speed transmissions, innovative new materials and start-stop systems – that weren’t even anticipated when the standards were written.

According to the UCS, since the current fuel economy standards came into effect, US consumers have saved nearly $57 billion on gasoline. By 2030, existing standards are projected to create some 650,000 American jobs, and eliminate more global warming emissions than virtually any other piece of climate regulation enacted to date.”

See Trump administration prepares to roll back vehicle emissions and efficiency standardsNever reluctant to shoot himself or his country in the foot, Trump is looking at rolling back efficiency standards for motor-vehicles which have long since been incorporated smoothly into the economy. Every automaker of note is building EVs and cranking out smaller more efficient vehicles. The internal combustion engine is in its heyday of efficiency but will be overtaken by electric batteries and motors. Everyone knows that but Trump and his sycophants. While new technologies are busily creating jobs which Trump promised, Trump now plans to disrupt advances.

Well, I hope business does not take the bait. Keep on keeping on folks. Move along. There’s nothing to see from the Trumpists. Let them run around in their ignorance. There will be no law forbidding you to make cars and trucks more efficient than your competitors. Just carry on.

It’s sad that USA elected a demented old man to be POTUS. He’s not leading USA forward but backwards into the mistakes of the past. Ignore him and you’ll be OK. Expect impeachment to sweep him from office within a year. Now, about Pence…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

157 Responses to Going Backwards

But the thing is, no threading library on Earth is sufficient to implement the Haskell Promise monad. Not in Java. Not in any language environment you care to think of.
Drloser again forgets homework. Java has futures and promises in library,
docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CompletableFuture.html
stackoverflow.com/questions/14541975/difference-between-future-and-promise
stackoverflow.com/questions/44522665/convert-scala-future-and-promise-to-java-8-comletablefuture
deadcoderising.com/java8-writing-asynchronous-code-with-completablefuture/

(And, interestingly, the thing about C#’s equivalent of the Promise monad is that it doesn’t even require multi-threading. The compiler is free (on, say, a single core system) to implement the monad in an entirely sequential way — no threading required!)
Java has Promise monad in library form. Also async-await is single core system is impossible, it require multi-threading. How does async-await use multitask schedulers? multi-threading. Its how servers connect in 1000s TCP connections, it use multi-threading.

What a special little snowflake. You’d really have to volunteer for a frontal lobotomy before you came up with the idea that the second of the following pair is “bloated” and has “syntactic sugar” compared to the first:
I have to memorize, its more language bloat. Try again drloser

Try again, Peaty.
Drloser please do make me repeat, you are very stubborn. I show you facts, however you cover ears always. I tell you the fact that bloat is not good, however you defend it always, show me complicated codes, however I do the straight punch, I win you lose. I rest my case loser.

What you fail to realize, little Joey, is that the query syntax of C# is semantically identical to the method syntax. Query syntax is just syntactic sugar, available for those who choose to use it and which compiles into method calls, because this is all CLR supports. No SQL Server is ever used, you dimwit!
query syntax is bloat. SQL Server is installed in microsoft visual studios.

I am not surprised you can’t comprehend how async-await works. It is not about running silly threads like the way you do, and which is totally wrong (unless Java VM does the dirty job for you, like it does). It is nothing but a clean way to write futures and promises in an easy to read way.
Java has futures and promises in library, c# async-await is language bloat. For example, you can create an instance of this class with a no-arg constructor to represent some future result, hand it out to the consumers and complete it at some time in the future using the complete method. The consumers may use the get method to block the current thread until this result will be provided. In the example below we have a method that creates a CompletableFuture instance, then spins off some computation in another thread and returns the Future immediately. When the computation is done, the method completes the Future by providing the result to the complete method:

To spin off the computation, we use the Executor API which is described in the article “Introduction to Thread Pools in Java”, but this method of creating and completing a CompletableFuture can be used together with any concurrency mechanism or API including raw threads.Notice that the calculateAsync method returns a Future instance. We simply call the method, receive the Future instance and call the get method on it when we’re ready to block for the result. Also notice that the get method throws some checked exceptions, namely ExecutionException (encapsulating an exception that occurred during a computation) and InterruptedException (an exception signifying that a thread executing a method was interrupted):

Async-await is an amazing, precious concept. One just needs to see how it empowers durable functions. Alas, your pathetic excuse for a brain is not capable of coping with it.
No c# has obsolete thread model, Java has also however it does not have bloated languages. Google’s Go is simpler language, it does one thing do well. Goroutine use green thread, faster than OS thread. It is more powerful than async-await also.

Yeah, boo on Java for allowing developers to spend time delivering business value instead of spending time being “smart “or spending time debugging unsafe arrays, pointer errors and memory leaks. Also, boo on it on being easily compilable to JVM bytecode which doesn’t lock companies into expensive OS and hardware combos ( *cough* HP-UX *cough*). But by far the biggest problem of Java is that said bytecode is not a contiguous undebuggable hexadecimal sludge but an easily debuggable traceable code.

Well look at you, convincing yourself what you are doing isn’t a drain on humanity.

(The constant is obviously 5, not 5000. I shouldn’t have to point this typo out, but I’m beginning to agree with Kurks. Pog’s commentators will typically pick on any irrelevant discrepancy just to make themselves feel good about their sad little lives.)

Now that you mention it, I can’t see why Java bothers with threads at all! This is clearly less verbose, has absolutely no bloat, and doesn’t even bother the scheduler with a completely irrelevant thread!

What a special little snowflake. You’d really have to volunteer for a frontal lobotomy before you came up with the idea that the second of the following pair is “bloated” and has “syntactic sugar” compared to the first:

(And, interestingly, the thing about C#’s equivalent of the Promise monad is that it doesn’t even require multi-threading. The compiler is free (on, say, a single core system) to implement the monad in an entirely sequential way — no threading required!)

Sigh. We’re never going to be allowed an amicable discussion of lazy evaluation, are we? Too much incontinence to wade through in metaphorical thigh-high protective boots.

async is bloated syntax sugar. Java is better since it has thread in Java library only,

Interestingly, C# async is actually the reverse of “syntactic sugar.” Essentially, it implements a monad (for reference, see the Promise monad in Haskell, then add do-notation) via a state machine that the compiler helpfully cobbles together on your behalf.

This is not something I would like to do myself, even once, let alone every single time I wish to use the moral equivalent of a Haskell Promise monad. I expect I therefore have to spell it out for you: it isn’t syntactic sugar in any meaningful way.

It’s nice that Java has a threading library. It’s even nicer that you offered us education on that point. It’s slightly less nice that you think we didn’t already know, but then, given your apparent skills, you probably hang around in a cave full of Neanderthals or possibly Social Studies freshmen, so perhaps I shouldn’t be too hard on you.

But the thing is, no threading library on Earth is sufficient to implement the Haskell Promise monad. Not in Java. Not in any language environment you care to think of.

Well, I was going to talk about lazy evaluation, which is actually the only interesting subject you brought up. It’s worth thinking about. I’ve enjoyed thinking about it, particularly with reference to C# and Java Streams API.

That would be a worth-while discussion, I think, and since I am not sure of my ground, I would have liked a peer-review sort of thing.

Unfortunately, Peaty (sound familiar?), you are not my peer. As evidenced by the following incoherent verbal diarrhoeia:

Dr Loser you are a incompetent fool. stream() is not basically an operator, it is Java function.

This is quite pitiful. You don’t even need a BSc in CS to recognise the similarity between an operator and a function. Indeed, C++ implements operator overload by, guess what, a function!

Restricting ourselves to unary, binary, and ternary operators — which matches practise, but is not theoretically necessary — we can see quite clearly that the following pairs are equivalent:

++a
—-
a.Increment()

a + b
——
a.Plus(b)

a ? b : c
———
a => b if a else c

(I use Python-ish lambda notation in the ternary case because it is clearer. I think we can all agree that a lambda function is a function. Well, most of us wouldn’t have a problem with this concept, anyhow.)

In short, an operator is nothing more than syntactic sugar for the equivalent function.

Now, the reason I claim that .stream() in Java Streams API is basically an operator is quite simple. You can’t use the Java Streams API without it. That makes it essentially an operator, in my book. In fact, in everybody’s book but yours, Peaty. (Where have I heard that name before?)

Consider:

collection.Stream.F(G(H(I)))
———————————–
collection :=> F(G(H(I)))

This is just a different representation of the infix binary operator .stream(), which is left-associative and takes two parameters, one of which in this case is “collection” and the other of which is the application of an arbitrary list of functions. Which happens to return, I think, List, but that actually isn’t relevant to the argument.

I trust you are just about able to comprehend this simple bit of CS theory.

Though, on reflection, I suspect you’re not.

We might get to lazy evaluation a little later, if you’re a really good boy and take your pills.

Now, if I were to assert that, say, installing Scala via apt-get pulls down MySQL as a dependency (it might, but I doubt it very much. I use Scala as an example because it probably isn’t part of the distro), you would rightly ask me to justify this assertion. Where, you would ask, is the MySQL installation. I can’t see it. I’ll even go a step further and apt-get info MySQL … Oh look, I still can’t see it.

Similarly, if a brain-dead imbecile happened to accost me in the street and claim that “dot Net requires and/or implements the installation of SQL Server,” I think I’d be justified in asking for some sort of proof.

Y’see, it’s rather difficult to miss a SQL Server installation. For one thing, it takes thirty minutes at the very least. For another thing, it’s a massively configurable installation, and it likes to ask questions via dialog boxes, and it’s pretty picky about being answered, and it ain’t gonna go very far unless you do answer the questions. Also, it dwarves the basic dot Net installation by a factor of at least ten to one.

I think you’d notice, if you’d ever installed dot Net.

I conclude therefore that you are a reprehensible little toad who has never installed dot Net.

It is not c# linq, c# linq is bloated language. Java use Unix philosophy, it does one does it well. c# is bloat it installs SQL language(microsoft’s sql server).

Dear goodness!

What you fail to realize, little Joey, is that the query syntax of C# is semantically identical to the method syntax. Query syntax is just syntactic sugar, available for those who choose to use it and which compiles into method calls, because this is all CLR supports. No SQL Server is ever used, you dimwit!

I am not surprised you can’t comprehend how async-await works. It is not about running silly threads like the way you do, and which is totally wrong (unless Java VM does the dirty job for you, like it does). It is nothing but a clean way to write futures and promises in an easy to read way.

Async-await is an amazing, precious concept. One just needs to see how it empowers durable functions. Alas, your pathetic excuse for a brain is not capable of coping with it.

But let’s just take your word for it that it is. Let’s even assume that Zend/PHP beats the living crap out of C++ (which, interestingly enough, can be compiled and linked without the burden of exceptions, and would at that point basically be C).

Move semantics. I realise that semantics are a teeny tiny bit above your pay scale, because it isn’t even clear that you understand “feature bloat” or “syntax” — clue: .stream() is basically an operator and therefore a “bloated,” yet necessary, bit of syntax in the Java Streams API — but, consider semantics. Google, if you will. We can wait.
Dr Loser you are a incompetent fool. stream() is not basically an operator, it is Java function. Java use method chains, it does not add language features. Java is simple language, however it has the most powerful librarys. Operator is bloated syntax sugar. c++, c#, swift, objection C, delphi, d, scala have a lot of features, however they do not have most powerful librarys, language is very hard, hence it is most difficult strenous to write library. Why is Java most famous in the world captain obvious?

I think you’ll find that the main attraction of PHP and Zend to employers is that you can find a horde of cheap inadequate programmers to sling out low-quality dreck for a web-server. Once again, the “speed” is neither here nor there.
Facebook is not a horde of cheap inadequate programmers.https://www.paysa.com/company-rank
Facebook is top ranked company 5
Dr Loser work for microsoft, it is rank 42

fat# has more diabetes…
async is bloated syntax sugar. Java is better since it has thread in Java library only, not c# language feature creep, c# has thread in library form also, however async is futile bloat. c# is a nanny, it is language for infants. Infants eat a lot, they love sugar. steve ballmer the fat infant loves sugarJava

Now, I won’t guarantee that either one of those will work off the bat. I’ve deliberately attempted to use the lambda-elision in C# that means you can directly apply a “group method” to each element of a sequence in the case of Substring. And for no particular reason, I’ve chosen to defer the selection of the three characters until the actual WriteLine.
lambda-elision is bloated syntax sugar. Does c# have french fries?

Yes, one more thing. Let’s see you explain “Lazy Evaluation.”
Dr Loser the fat donkey asks question. In programming language theory, lazy evaluation, or call-by-need, is an evaluation strategy which delays the evaluation of an expression until its value is needed (non-strict evaluation) and which also avoids repeated evaluations (sharing). The sharing can reduce the running time of certain functions by an exponential factor over other non-strict evaluation strategies, such as call-by-name. The benefits of lazy evaluation include: The ability to define control flow (structures) as abstractions instead of primitives. The ability to define potentially infinite data structures. This allows for more straightforward implementation of some algorithms. Performance increases by avoiding needless calculations, and error conditions in evaluating compound expressions. Lazy evaluation is often combined with memoization, as described in Jon Bentley’s Writing Efficient Programs. After a function’s value is computed for that parameter or set of parameters, the result is stored in a lookup table that in indexed by the values of those parameters; the next time the function is called, the table is consulted to determine whether the result for that combination of parameter values is already available. If so, the stored result is simply returned. If not, the function is evaluated and another entry is added to the lookup table for reuse. Lazy evaluation can lead to reduction in memory footprint, since values are created when needed. However, lazy evaluation is difficult to combine with imperative features such as exception handling and input/output, because the order of operations becomes indeterminate. Lazy evaluation can introduce space leaks. The opposite of lazy evaluation is eager evaluation, sometimes known as strict evaluation. Eager evaluation is the evaluation strategy employed in most programming languages. Delayed evaluation is used particularly in functional programming languages. When using delayed evaluation, an expression is not evaluated as soon as it gets bound to a variable, but when the evaluator is forced to produce the expressoin’s value. That is, a statement such as x = expression; (i.e. the assignment of the result of an expression to a variable) clearly calls for the expression to be evaluated and the result placed in x, but what actually is in x is irrelevant until there is a need for its value via a reference to x in some later expression whose evaluation could itself be deferred, though eventually the rapidly growing tree of dependencies would be pruned to produce some symbol rather than another for the outside world to see. Delayed evaluation has the advantage of being able to create calculable infinite lists without infinite loops or size matters interfering in computation. For example, one could create a function that creates an infinite list (often called a stream) of Fibonacci numbers. The calculation of the n-th Fibonacci number would be merely the extraction of that element from the infinite list, forcing the evaluation of only the first n members of the list. For example, in the Haskell programming language, the list of all Fibonacci numbers can be written as: fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs) In Haskell syntax, “:” prepends an element to a list, tail returns a list without its first element, and zipWith uses a specified function (in this case addition) to combine corresponding elements of two lists to produce a third. Provided the programmer is careful, only the values that are required to produce a particular result are evaluated. However, certain calculations may result in the program attempting to evaluate an infinite number of elements; for example, requesting the length of the list or trying to sum the elements of the list with a fold operation would result in the program either failing to terminate or running out of memory.

I was impressed by the sheer silliness and incompetence of your exposition on the matter of “Markov Chains,” Joe. And in passing, I would recommend that you check out the statistical notion of “unit normalization,” which doesn’t help you much, but is at least relevant to that “range between 0,0 and 1.0” gibberish, or whatever it was.

Thanks for that, btw. The most hilarious thing I’ve read in weeks. Sadly, not at all accurate, but incredibly funny nonetheless.

Yes, one more thing. Let’s see you explain “Lazy Evaluation.”

You can use your own (pathetic) example in Java. Or mine, in C#. Or you can use a similar example of fluid programming in Python, Ruby … the list goes on.

Darn, what a useless website. Probably uses PHP/Zend. OK, this is not going to be as clear as I want it to be, but let’s examine (first) the quoted bit of Java Streams API brilliance, and (second) the equivalent in Linq, which has been around for about fifteen years longer. I’ll separate them with something primitive like bar lines.
————————–
language.stream()
.filter(s -> s.startsWith(“bad”))
.map(s -> s.substring(3))
.sorted()
.forEach(System.out::println);
———————–
language
.Where(Substring(0,3) == “bad”)
.Sort()
.ForEach(triple => Console.WriteLine ({0}{1}{2}, triple));
———————
Now, I won’t guarantee that either one of those will work off the bat. I’ve deliberately attempted to use the lambda-elision in C# that means you can directly apply a “group method” to each element of a sequence in the case of Substring. And for no particular reason, I’ve chosen to defer the selection of the three characters until the actual WriteLine.

In other words, I haven’t put any effort into it at all. And if I wanted to do it, I would use pretty much any Visual Studio version since VS2005 (which somewhat predates the Java Stream API by, let me make a rough estimate, 13 years), and I would nail it in, oh, I don’t know, about two minutes.

Which isn’t really the point.

Can you tell the difference between the two, kiddies? Clue: one is bloated and one is not.

Actually, I’m lying for the sake of exposition. They are for all intents and purposes identical. And there’s no real bloat at the syntax level.

The only lying here is, not mine, but the source of that Java Streams API snippet. Although, to be kind, Joe is far too cretinous to lie on purpose.

Habitually, yes. Automatically, even. But forgive him, O Lord, because he only has a single brain-cell to bash together.

And while you’re constructing your next Java Babble Stream, may I offer you my next refutation?

Move semantics. I realise that semantics are a teeny tiny bit above your pay scale, because it isn’t even clear that you understand “feature bloat” or “syntax” — clue: .stream() is basically an operator and therefore a “bloated,” yet necessary, bit of syntax in the Java Streams API — but, consider semantics. Google, if you will. We can wait.

Well,, no, we can’t. Life is too short. Do pray explain to us how PHP, Zend, anything you like, applies Move Semantics.

I assure you, without even waiting for your nitwit response, that you will be wrong.

I think you’ll find that the main attraction of PHP and Zend to employers is that you can find a horde of cheap inadequate programmers to sling out low-quality dreck for a web-server. Once again, the “speed” is neither here nor there.

But let’s just take your word for it that it is. Let’s even assume that Zend/PHP beats the living crap out of C++ (which, interestingly enough, can be compiled and linked without the burden of exceptions, and would at that point basically be C).

Let’s assume that.

Let’s ask you for a single piece of evidence.

You’re not that hot on evidence, are you? Boiling hot on babble out of the arse, but not that hot on evidence.

Linus Torvalds choose C, it is fastest language, however less than assembly language. c++ is slow language, it use OOP.

a) You are not listening. The pedal-to-the-metal speed is irrelevant.
b) You’re not even accurate. Try implementing quicksort with C, and quicksort with C++. Turns out that C++ is faster, because the compiler is allowed to elide the cost of the function pointer. You could of course avoid this cost by implementing the C version as if it were the C++ version, but, y’know, you’d have to be a flaming imbecile to do that. Particularly since you can spend your life writing C++ as though it were C, and then take advantage of the conveniences that C++ offers, as and when your nimble and no doubt incredibly well trained mind desires.
c) You are a moron.

Yet another challenge, then. (You haven’t responded to a single one yet.)

What, precisely, is it about OOP that makes it “inefficient?”

Was it you, or Tweedledum, who was banging on about JIT? Do you understand what JIT does? Do you understand which particular domains of computer languages apply to JIT? Do you? Do you?

This is what Linus did. And for why is it a premature optimization?
Linus Torvalds choose C, it is fastest language, however less than assembly language. c++ is slow language, it use OOP. Yes, it is very hard and slower than procedural. But in implementing the run-time behavior of OO, there are a couple of details which can slow things down. The inheritance mechanism of c++ means that object instances contain vtables which can be a small source of slowness. The method call is reconciled with the correct code by means of a table look-up. extra code has to be run to manage the objects. They have to be instantiated. They have to exist somwhere. Variables have to be managed at different permission levels. The actual code within OO objects shouldn’t take longer to run, but of course there’s going to be some overhead to support OOP as a language model. Real time processing applications benefit from tighter, smaller code. Super critical code areas need as little lag time as possible and faster hardware processing. Video conversion, high-speed games, graphics/CAD, real-time weather and satellite, industry safety mechanisms, low-level device drivers, etc., are extremely minimal, tailored, optimized to the hardware tasks.https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/compare/c.html

You seem very sure of that, for some reason. Since I don’t actually use Facebook, I presume you’re getting the relevant data points from somewhere else. May I enquire where?
The Paysa CompanyRank algorithm measures the quality of technical talent at a company over time, based on our analysis of 7.45 million job changes across 198,000 companies over the past 15+ years. Learn more
microsoft rank=42
Amazon rank=7
Facebook rank=5
Google rank=3https://www.paysa.com/company-rank#!companies=Microsoft:::Amazon:::Google:::Facebook&startDate=2007-02-01

DrLoser you work for microsoft, they hire easy coders

You’d be surprised how many doofuses get to work for each and every single one of these companies. I’ve worked in one and talked to colleagues in others. I actually know what I’m talking about. You don’t.
You do not work in Amazon, Facebook, Google

Incidentaslly, I may have spoken too soon. Perhaps Fifi is back, under another name:

padma please do research.. Vague assertion? It is not vague assertion captain obvious

“Please do research [because I am inadequate to do so]” is a classic Fifi-ism. As is the (self-defeating) “captain obvious.” So is the torrent of completely useless links. In the same post, “Joe” misspells a term that “he” had originally spelled correctly. Try to avoid words like “Complier” in future, Joe, or you might just catch yourself out. It’s not like we don’t have the Markov Chain data on you stored away.

That, by the way, was the most hilariously incompetent definition of a Markov Chain that any of us are ever likely to see. I particularly liked the weird segue into self-driving cars, although the Gaussian curve/predict the future thing was very, very funny, too.

Well done! Keep flying the flag for nitwittery!

But, for the love of God, do not go anywhere near the implementation phase of a self-driving car.

List language=new ArrayList();
language.add(“Go”);
[and on and on and on]

I’m asking you seriously. Is this a joke? Are you trying to torpedo your own argument? (Whatever that might be.)

Your entire post is gibberish. I miss Fifi: at least the tatterdemalion little lad tried, every now and again.

The Java Stream API (provided by nasty old Oracle, btw) is a belated copycat answer to Linq, with several hairy bits. I like the way you have to call stream() to kick things off, for example. And I’m amused by the necessity to “specialize” IntStream, >b>DoubleStream and LongStream. There may or may not be Join semantics, although if there are I don’t see how they can survive that specialization in a general enough way. I’m fastcinated by the weaselly “Pipelining: Many stream operations return a stream themselves…” What, not all of them? And in light of this limitation, and looking at sample code, the confident (Oracle) assertion that this style is “declarative” is basically nonsense. It’s the fluid style of programming: no more and no less.

Still better than not copycatting Linq, however, so I tip my hat to (evil evil evil) Oracle.

Here’s a chance to redeem yourself. Ignoring the total gibberish, let’s focus on your initial assertion about Linq, which at least has the merit of relevance to the discussion.

Name one single instance of Linq’s “feature creep.” And then tell us why Java Streams API is better off without that “feature creep.”

However you will never work for Facebook, you are not qualified, they hire best coders only.

You seem very sure of that, for some reason. Since I don’t actually use Facebook, I presume you’re getting the relevant data points from somewhere else. May I enquire where?

Until you, yourself, work for one of the big tech companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Red Hat, Oracle, etc) — and that is clearly a vanishingly unlikely prospect — then it’s hard to take your opinion seriously. (It’s an argument from ignorance, which I suppose is mildly preferable to an argument from authority. At least nobody is going to listen.)

You’d be surprised how many doofuses get to work for each and every single one of these companies. I’ve worked in one and talked to colleagues in others. I actually know what I’m talking about. You don’t.

Well, the fonts look blurry and there are problems like dialog windows opening on a different monitor than the one the application is running. It is happening on many text editors.

But this is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that GPU drivers are crap from a performance, bugginess and power management perspective. For example, Atom editor and Slack cause Linux Intel driver to draw flashing artifacts. It occasionally happens on Chrome too.

Then there are the X11-native apps with their failed dependencies. Since the Linux desktop is fractured between GTK and the KDE stuff, some vendors decide on the vendor-neutral solution of X11, which would be nice if Linux distros had standardized on a common set of calls and libraries, but they haven’t because Linux desktop sucks. It happened on a conferencing app called Zoom for me which failed on Ubuntu because of some missing X11 .so

It’s the language of choice of idiots that need to do the human race a favor and remove themselves from the gene pool.

Yeah, boo on Java for allowing developers to spend time delivering business value instead of spending time being “smart “or spending time debugging unsafe arrays, pointer errors and memory leaks. Also, boo on it on being easily compilable to JVM bytecode which doesn’t lock companies into expensive OS and hardware combos ( *cough* HP-UX *cough*). But by far the biggest problem of Java is that said bytecode is not a contiguous undebuggable hexadecimal sludge but an easily debuggable traceable code.

The company I work for uses Java (Tomcat and SpringBoot) for any apps made the last decade or so (and even for older stuff didn’t use C or C++), and also uses Python for internal scripts. And unlike the average C or C++ code, our B2B code does what it is supposed to and without all the memory leaks and memory corruption the average C or C++ code has (and which C and C++ programmers never seem to be able to expunge from their software). Which is why customers are actually happy and allows the company to pay good salaries.

Take, for example, PHP. I can’t recall which of you two nitwits claims to be learning it, and it doesn’t matter. PHP is “shooting your foot off” on steroids.
Facebook use PHP 7+Zend Engine. However you will never work for Facebook, you are not qualified, they hire best coders only. PHP 7+Zend Engine is very fast. It is faster 5x than Python I believe. PHP 7 is very fast since it add JIT processing. Zend Engine turn PHP code to assembly code. JIT is just in time, it increase efficiency and decrease waste by receiving goods only as they are needed in the production process, thereby reducing inventory costs. Zend Engine is the open source scripting engine that interprets the PHP programming language.https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/compare/php.htmlhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Zend.01-internal-structure.png

Oh, and Linus’ argument for using C instead of C++ when writing Git is possibly the stupidest argument for premature optimisation I have ever heard.
Git does not use premature optimisation, it use Bash+Perl+Tcl a lot, however it is very fast still. Git is more powerful than subversion, faster than subversion. DVCS is distribute version control system, it downloads all repo history. Subversion needs internet, very slow at commit. Subversion is centralized version control system. File lock is slow, merge is worst. Git is the best, it beats the crap out of competitions

Repeat after me: “Do you want fries with that?”
Dr Padma your professor is mad. Markov chain do not use SQL query. Markov chain predict event in future, hence it use statisics. Dr Padma’s brain is very small, however I can help you learn Markov chain. Markov chain is state array. It use probability, I hope USA education teach you probablility. The chain is real number between 0-1, it means what is chance of choosing chain? Eliminate process choose a chain. If random number not bigger than chain, chain is remove. It use while loop until single chain is chosen. Hence, random chain is chosen by Markov chain algorithm. Markov chain is powerful than guassian curve. Example.. Self drive cars predict event in future, it use Markov chain. Google use Markov chain also. However I can not agonize your brain, it is beneath my dignity.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.

Did you really come up with that all by yourself, Joe? No, wait, you didn’t.

And once again we come back to “Argument from authority.” (I’ve translated from the Latin, because you are clearly ignorant.)

The thing about this is that Stroustrup said it in 1986, and made it plain that he was arguing about “more powerful languages” in general. So, in terms of C++, it doesn’t necessarily apply any more, but in terms of “more powerful languages,” you are clearly too stupid to consider the possibility.

Take, for example, PHP. I can’t recall which of you two nitwits claims to be learning it, and it doesn’t matter. PHP is “shooting your foot off” on steroids.

Oh, and Linus’ argument for using C instead of C++ when writing Git is possibly the stupidest argument for premature optimisation I have ever heard.

Which certainly explains why so many Linux GUIs are lame and broken. You do realise that they’re generally (and of course I exempt professional jobs with Qt and so on) built on top of bash scripts (these days Python scripts, I don’t know why I’m bothering to fill in the gaps of your education but I have to be honest here). Consequently, in the real world, bash “beating the crap” out of GUIs is not a good thing. It’s a literal reality.
Linux GUI are good, it is not Apple’s Mac, however I am happy on Xfce. QT is cross platform GUI, why hate Linux GUI?

Not “out of the box,” you can’t. Try compiling a modern Debian kernel. Compare to a Windows 10 kernel. Roughly the same size.
Debain is Linux distro, however it is not the smallest, it is easiest to use, Ubuntu use Debain. windows 10 is a lot of GB, I do not use windows 10. Gentoo is made fun of, however it has best custimisation. windows 10 does not have kernel custimisation, hence install all driver bloat. Linux does have kernel custimisation, hence can choose device drivers
Evidence https://tuxicity.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/screenshot-rootubuntu-usr-src-linux.png
Server, supercomputer, Google, internet of things, drone, Android use Linux since they have no fat drivers. Supercomputer do not have USB driver, it is bloat.

No, everything pretends to be a (sequential, unstructured) file. Between the reality and the idea … falls the shadow.
XML, awk, sed, grep, cut, Perl

Free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in “doesn’t consume any hardware resources whatsoever,” free as in a song by Cream/Eric Clapton?

fork use COW, copy on write

Web servers are utilities at this point. Nobody cares. Good for you! (Not that you had anything to do with it.)
Server, supercomputer, Google, internet of things, drone, Android use Linux

A pencil and paper is turing complete. (It’s basically the thought experiment that Turing used.)

beats the crap out of GUI.

Which certainly explains why so many Linux GUIs are lame and broken. You do realise that they’re generally (and of course I exempt professional jobs with Qt and so on) built on top of bash scripts (these days Python scripts, I don’t know why I’m bothering to fill in the gaps of your education but I have to be honest here). Consequently, in the real world, bash “beating the crap” out of GUIs is not a good thing. It’s a literal reality.

It does not have all features, however plugin are very powerful.

You’ll need to explain which particular part of the *nix ecosystem you’re talking about here, because this is such a vague assertion that it is in practise useless.

Linux OS I can compile small MB kernel

Not “out of the box,” you can’t. Try compiling a modern Debian kernel. Compare to a Windows 10 kernel. Roughly the same size.

everything is file

No, everything pretends to be a (sequential, unstructured) file. Between the reality and the idea … falls the shadow.

fork process is free

Free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in “doesn’t consume any hardware resources whatsoever,” free as in a song by Cream/Eric Clapton?

It isn’t actually a single one of those, is it?

Its use in 99% web servers.

Web servers are utilities at this point. Nobody cares. Good for you! (Not that you had anything to do with it.)

On a conciliatory note, I also looked up “first class functions java.” Because that’s the sort of thing you do if you want to figure out whether a Java lambda is a useful bit of syntax or not. (Clue to Tweedledee, or it might have been Tweedledum, the difference is immaterial: the fact that a Java lambda is an “anonymous object” isn’t really helpful or interesting, because Java has “anonymous objects” that are significantly less powerful than a lambda. As usual, they just tacked lambdas on to the underlying language using the nearest convenient hook.)

Not much on that, but I did notice that a large preponderance of responses were for JavaScript. So here’s the conciliatory bit:

“In JavaScript, functions are first-class objects, because they can have properties and methods just like any other object. ”

I trust that both of you little lunatics are capable of spotting why this is, basically, a demented assertion.

I don’t really expect a useful link from either of these New Age Illiterates, so I figured I’d try googling for myself. And I want you to trust me (to some degree) on this, so I will even tell you the query terms.

Do not google for “google sun.” Not enough information for the search engine. Try “google sun microsystems.” You get a lot of interesting stuff.

A man who, as I understand it, has spent his entire life programming in C. (Plus assembler where necessary, of course. I agree with that. We oldies have all done it.) Yes, that makes sense. I’ll trust Linus on the evils of C++, because I don’t need to think about it, I just trust Linus.

Conversationally, have you ever heard of the phrase argumentum ad auctoritatem?

I impress myself, then, because until you mentioned it, I’d never even heard of it. Probably nobody else here has, either, so I’ll remediate your (unsurprising) lack of guidance by quoting Wikipedia:

“A Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which the aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury rather than to factually refute the case of the other side. ”

You’re pulling this one out of your backside, aren’t you?

I’ve actually provided facts. (You haven’t, by the way. Not a single fact. I’ve provided facts on Microsoft. I’ve provided facts on ElectraMecchanica, as have we all … although Robert appears to prefer his “Chewbacca” moments on the subject. Perhaps you should redirect your ire in his direction.

Nope, I’m not a “Microsoft fanboy.” I’m not even sure what the term is meant to mean. Perhaps you could supply another illuminating exposition derived from “Star Wars fanboyism” and “South Park fanboyism?” You probably have more personal experience of either than you do of anything connected to computer science.

Microsoft fanboys should really not pretend to know or care about road safety regulations unless they want to make even greater fools of themselves.

Why not? Lacking a complete (or even incomplete) profile of these rare beasts — you really should provide one, you know; it would greatly assist your argument) — I can’t see why it is incompatible to be, say, the Spawn of the Devil, and yet still maintain a healthy interest in the technology that takes said spawn from home to work and back again.

Were I a “Microsoft fanboy,” which I’m not, I would presumably require the assistance of a motor vehicle to take me to and from “Microsoft fanboy rallies,” where the faithful stand in regimented lines to chant their specially-orchestrated slogans and exchange secret handshakes. As they do. And it would hardly be out of the question for me to therefore take an interest in road safety regulations, would it? I mean, unlike you, I’m not really interested in mental hospital regulations, because, unlike you, I’m never really likely to end up in one.

Probably not, since Sun is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle.
Before Oracle buy Sun, Sun welcome Google. Need I say more?

You must have missed a few things over the last ten years or so. An education, perhaps?
Bachelor’s of computer science degree. Before I use microsoft product, I was stubborn, lock in visual studio luxary. However I learn the hard way, Unix is my IDE. Bash CLI is turing complete, beats the crap out of GUI. It does not have all features, however plugin are very powerful. Linux OS I can compile small MB kernel, everything is file, fork process is free. Its use in 99% web servers.

I use to love Java, however since oracle I learn Google’s Go now. oracle will never be capitalize in my book.

No it bleeding isn’t. There’s no equivalent at all in Java to Linq. The syntax of lambda functions is entirely different.
c# is only Java with syntax sugar. afaik, Linq is just SQL query syntax sugar. Java can chain object method to query SQL database. Java has lambda function, however it is not bloat. It is good syntax sugar, they replace with anonymous object BTS

And what’s so great about “syntax,” anyway? I’m not entirely up-to-date with Java, but I suspect the type-elision which underlay all Java generics up until Java 7 (I think) is still sitting there, ready to bite you. If only by boxing and unboxing.
What if Oracle copyright Java syntax? They sue C, Javascript, PHP, Perl. They also sue c++, c#, swift, objective C, I hate them but they have right to exist.

Haven’t checked on the Java memory model or threading model recently, either, but given that they were meant to be as vanilla as possible — I doubt they’ve improved much.
I agree Java memory model or threading model is old. However since Oracle I will never use Java, I use Google’s Go now

Java still interfaces to most other languages (useful if you want to use a mildly esoteric shared library) via JNI, as I understand. JNI is dangerous crap. I know this. I have written it. Dot-Net at least has managed C++, which is much nicer. I’ve programmed with that also.
c++ is danger, hearing from Linus Torvalds:

C++ is a horrible language. It’s made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it’s much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said “to piss you off”, but it’s actually true. I’ve come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn’t come and screw up any project I’m involved with.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the “nice” library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may “help” you program, but causes:

– infinite amounts of pain when they don’t work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it’s not even funny)

– inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn’t very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don’t screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don’t screw things up with any
idiotic “object model” crap.

So I’m sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the “advantages” of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a “real database”. They use “nice object-oriented libraries”.
They use “nice C++ abstractions”. And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

But I’m sure you’d like it more than git.

Linus

I’d rather not deal with either, but if I had the choice, C# beats the crap out of Java every single time.
Happy you hate c#, I understand you hate Java, however mirosoft c# is not cross platform, only run in windows, not devloper friendly OS, no command line apps. I need powerful CLI: grep sed awk find vi. visual studio has a lot of GUI buttons, however it does not beat CLI. Unix CLI+VIM+PLUGINS (autocomplete) beats the crap out of visual studio every single time.

We agree to hate both, I hate Java now since Oracle.

However Java still is use in Linux server (Linux is more use in server market share, windows not), client gui (Java FX), games (Minecraft), Android app and more. However since Oracle, I consider Google’s Dart. Also Go and Javascript. Google’s Go use efficient thread model, beats the crap out of Java. It use green thread userspace, bypasses expensive OS thread

No it bleeding isn’t. There’s no equivalent at all in Java to Linq. The syntax of lambda functions is entirely different.

And what’s so great about “syntax,” anyway? I’m not entirely up-to-date with Java, but I suspect the type-elision which underlay all Java generics up until Java 7 (I think) is still sitting there, ready to bite you. If only by boxing and unboxing.

Haven’t checked on the Java memory model or threading model recently, either, but given that they were meant to be as vanilla as possible — I doubt they’ve improved much.

Java still interfaces to most other languages (useful if you want to use a mildly esoteric shared library) via JNI, as I understand. JNI is dangerous crap. I know this. I have written it. Dot-Net at least has managed C++, which is much nicer. I’ve programmed with that also.

I’d rather not deal with either, but if I had the choice, C# beats the crap out of Java every single time.

Don’t try to be smart about something you know nothing at all about, sonny. It will only end in grief.

First of all, there is no such thing as a “Microsoft fanboy.” Robert has already spent countless column inches denouncing the Trump theory of “false news.” This is the same thing, except it isn’t even news — it’s just false. You are a deluded paranoiac with conspiracy theory tendencies. Welcome to Robert’s Pet Hate Society Blog!

And secondly, if by “worthless,” you mean “worth $90 per share, and with an 11% growth, and based upon the common stock out there, a total of $693 billion … yes, you might have a point.

Blamed if I know what that point is.

And Robert is looking pretty sheepish right now, considering that he turned down the chance to buy the stock at $30 a scant five years ago.

Senseless uninformed bigotry isn’t good for your health, either mental or financial.

Well, obviously. Because only Microsoft fanboys care to think about stuff like safety, regulation, resale value and so on.

The Microsoft fanboy’s “thinking” has already been deemed worthless. First you and your friends hysterically denied IP/10/619, and after getting called out for that, promptly moved the goalposts and started to write hearsay about alleged problems regarding the service of the modern automobiles by independen garages.

Oooh, an object oriented syntax is similar to an object oriented syntax. Do tell, oh soon to be ball-less one.

Apache 2.0.Apache license is GPL compatible.

Oh really? So when the Apache Software Foundation says: Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2, citing the patent termination and indemnification provisions as restrictions not present in the older GPL license. they are lying through their teeth and we should listen to the rando on the internet raving about compatibility between the licenses?

It is subjective, I believe Google has right to write Java library.

Copyright is not nor has it ever been subjective. Google has the right to pay for the code it has copied.

.Net Frameworks never included GPL code from pre-existing projects.
Android’s Dalvik is Java implementation license in Apache 2.0.Apache license is GPL compatible. Net Framework not copy Java API, however it copies spirit of Java but not “write once run anywhere”. Also I hate microsoft but it is microsoft’s freedom to copy Java and it is Google’s freedom to copy JVMhttps://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

Google clearly violated Oracle’s copyright and the GPL… something to think about while you are resting up from having your balls cut off to save the human race from your genetic sample 😉
It is subjective, I believe Google has right to write Java library. POSIX is open standard, I believe Java is also

Microsoft make .Net Frameworks copycat of Java, they never get sued by Oracle (Microsoft in bed with Oracle).

On the off chance that you’re not a troll and honestly believe this would you please do the human race a favor and cut your balls off? Thanks. In fact, do that anyway then build Bob a Harley.

C# is an entirely different language than Java, .Net Frameworks never included GPL code from pre-existing projects. Google clearly violated Oracle’s copyright and the GPL… something to think about while you are resting up from having your balls cut off to save the human race from your genetic sample 😉

Pogson with Petey riding bitch? I’d pay to see that. Not as much as Google is going to have to pay Oracle for blatantly copying Java, but I’d pay a dollar or so.

“We are disappointed the court reversed the jury finding that Java is open and free for everyone,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. “This type of ruling will make apps and online services more expensive for users. We are considering our options.”

I am not very happy, Oracle can not copyright API. Java was open standard by Sun Microsystems, they welcome Google to use Java. Microsoft make .Net Frameworks copycat of Java, they never get sued by Oracle (Microsoft in bed with Oracle). Net Framework is copy of Java API. Nevertheless it is lock in Window OS, not cross platform in macOS or Linux. I hate Oracles double standard. Copyright Java is like copyright POSIX.

“The wheels on the tricycle go round and round … oops, one of them is stuck. And the other one fell off whilst I wobbled round a traffic circle.”

A lovely song, and only half-plausible. Because, yet again, Robert, we have to point the obvious out to you: you’ll never even get to crash one of these plastic rubbishy things, because they’d have to be delivered in the first place.

Take my advice. Have a (somewhat delayed) mid-life crisis. Build yourself a Harley, and do that Easy Rider thing with Peter Dolding on the pillion seat.

Not as much as Google is going to have to pay Oracle for blatantly copying Java…

You haven’t even mentioned the most hilarious bit from that link, which as far as I can tell comes from Google’s CEO.

“We have agreed to demilitarise AI … [goes on to claim that unspecified others are “weaponising” software].”

What a total and utter prick. Also, not really a poster child for FLOSS. But then again, Google haven’t really been a poster child for FLOSS since they came up with Goobuntu, which Robert fondly believes he can freely download and build.

No, Robert, you can’t. You couldn’t back then. You can’t now. Even the so-called “free” fork is dead.

Not as much as Google is going to have to pay Oracle for blatantly copying Java, but I’d pay a dollar or so.

…aaand Oracle joined the elite club of companies trying to impose an “innovation tax” along with UniSys (GIF), SCO (Linux) and Microsoft (FAT32). Do we notice a pattern here? All such companies are “legacy compatibility providers” when it comes to OSes or in the case of Microsoft on their way there.

Interesting question from Deaf Spy though. (I hate to tear myself away from the image of Robert in full “FOSS Angels” leathers whacking his self-build Harley the wrong way around or over a traffic circle, because you have to admit, it’s a compelling and rather satisfying image — but let’s be real, it’s only marginally more likely than him doing the same thing in a Solo.)

I don’t actually know of a modern car that doesn’t feature a set of quite complicated and specific computer systems, mostly based upon CANBus. In theory you should be able to download the software and pretty much do it yourself (or ask a friendly garage mechanic to help). In practise, having consulted with several Irish entrepreneurs who wanted to do just this specific thing … turns out it’s not actually FLOSS, and you can’t.

How, precisely, do you expect this to work with a “limited edition! Just this once in bright red, because you asked for it!” wretched little tricycle, Robert?

Where did you get this latest incompetent ignorant nincompoop from, Robert? Is there some sort of “dark net Internet neckbeard clod” site that you have access to?

For a fraction of a second I wonder what kind of raging idiot writes this kind of text, but the answer is obvious: a Microsoft fanboy.

Well, obviously. Because only Microsoft fanboys care to think about stuff like safety, regulation, resale value and so on. My next-dorr neighbours are not “Microsoft fanboys,” and it therefore follows that they will drive any old crap, not bother with things like insurance, wait until it breaks six months later, and then throw it away.

Because, fortunately for them, they do not listen to anybody who is a “Microsoft fanboy.” Bit lucky they’re not anti-semitic, really, because if you combine Zionism with Gates Worship, that’s practically every 12 foot lizard on the planet.

That motorbike thing, btw? Here, try this. About the same price as a Solo, and yes, it is available right now, and yes, you get the joy of building it yourself. Build yourself a Harley!

Can you imagine Robert dragging his portly frame onto a self-build Harley? I can.

How so? How does not duelling into minute details about classification of not-a-car enclosed vehicles (which is different per country and irrelevant to the conversation btw) is an “imminent danger to me and other road users around me”. Please explain. I am smart enough to ask what kind of license a vehicle requires before I drive it (if it is anything other than a real car or a real motorcycle) btw.

If you are literally unaware that you cannot just throw together a motorcycle with absolutely no regard to safety regulations and take it to the road, and when pointed out that is not the case, call that fact a some kind of minor, irrelevant thing that only a “neckbeard” is interested in, that speaks out of a really bad judgement towards road safety issues.

Your complete and utter cluelessness of traffic legistlation is not “minor semantic difference” but an imminent danger to you and other road users around you.

How so? How does not duelling into minute details about classification of not-a-car enclosed vehicles (which is different per country and irrelevant to the conversation btw) is an “imminent danger to me and other road users around me”. Please explain. I am smart enough to ask what kind of license a vehicle requires before I drive it (if it is anything other than a real car or a real motorcycle) btw.

Then, let me bring yours and the Well-Well’s attention to this sentence:
However, other potential problems involve access to spare parts and the refusal to honour warranties if consumers have work done outside the authorised repair networks.

Not really working. But how would you know? Have you ever owned a brand new car?

I know it is hard for you but please read the page again, understand the content and try to be honest. That is written on the “Background” section of the page, and it is describing the situation that regulation is addressing. No, the manufacturers do not have right to withhold the parts and/or information.

What you also miss is that many manufacturers offer more than 2 years of warranty. This extended warranty is not offered really by the manufacturer (who is required for only 2), but by a dedicated insurance company to whom the manufacturer pays the premium. This extended warranty has its own terms, and EU is saying nothing on this.

Robert, let me bring your attention to this particular sentence:The work can be carried out by an independent garage as long as that garage uses manufacturer approved parts and correctly follows the manufacturer’s service schedule.

Couple this with the simple fact that new cars have a computer that needs to be interfaced on every service. Now, can you show me where Mr. X, an independent garage owner, can download the specs and software to operate the computer of a 2017 Ford / Volvo / BMW?

What you also miss is that many manufacturers offer more than 2 years of warranty. This extended warranty is not offered really by the manufacturer (who is required for only 2), but by a dedicated insurance company to whom the manufacturer pays the premium. This extended warranty has its own terms, and EU is saying nothing on this.

Then, let me bring yours and the Well-Well’s attention to this sentence:However, other potential problems involve access to spare parts and the refusal to honour warranties if consumers have work done outside the authorised repair networks.

Not really working. But how would you know? Have you ever owned a brand new car?

Deaf Spy wrote, “In EU these “provisions” are valid for any piece of consumer equipment / machinery you can think of.”

“Changes to the BER in 2002 included clauses intended to increase choice when it comes to servicing of a new car. You cannot be obliged e.g. as a condition of warranty, to have your car serviced by a franchised dealer.

Other changes at that time permitted multi-brand showrooms and no longer obliged dealers to combine sales and service/repair – though most have continued to do so.

Well, duh, who doesn’t? Especially by neckbeards who think splitting hairs and obsessing over non consequential minor semantic differences makes them sound smart or contributes to the conversation.

Get lost troll, you are a waste of space.

Your complete and utter cluelessness of traffic legistlation is not “minor semantic difference” but an imminent danger to you and other road users around you. In the highly unlikely case you have a driver’s license, please return it to where you got it ASAP.

Not true. In EU these “provisions” are valid for any piece of consumer equipment / machinery you can think of.

Again, for a moment I wonder why are you lying like that, but then I remember you are a Microsoft fanboy and that explains it all.

“Car manufacturers will no longer be able to make the warranty conditional on having the oil changed or other car services only in authorised garages.”

Nah, this particular maroon can construct proper sentences. Fifi couldn’t. Not that Well-Well is any more intelligent, tough. It was just that Fifi combined his mental deficiency with some language one, which I can’t be bothered to classify.

Now this idiot thinks (s)he can diagnose a mental condition by a couple of blog comments.

Nah, this particular maroon can construct proper sentences. Fifi couldn’t. Not that Well-Well is any more intelligent, tough. It was just that Fifi combined his mental deficiency with some language one, which I can’t be bothered to classify.

At least I am not a neckbeard keen on splitting hairs and taking everything too literally. My point is that all those enclosed not-a-car vehicles do not have near the safety of a real car despite not being really motorcycles or bicycles. Now crawl back under your bridge.

Wow, you really seem to hate being called for being completely clueless.

At least I am not a neckbeard keen on splitting hairs and taking everything too literally. My point is that all those enclosed not-a-car vehicles do not have near the safety of a real car despite not being really motorcycles or bicycles. Now crawl back under your bridge.

Lol, I was about to post that. Q1 2018 came and went, and Pog is still Solo-less. Did he really believe that a company with no production news and no evidence of a working assembly line could magically deliver the hundreds of Solos that are in front of Pog’s priority wise? I really hope Pog is trolling us, I do not want to consider the possibility he truly believe the Q1 2018 nonsense we was blowing.

Let’s remember Pog is part of the generation who thought that allowing banks to bundle junk debt into AAA securities, who modelled the state-pension system on Ponzi schemes (aka new investors pay dividends to the old without much investment in between), and is also the generation who still thinks the way to prosperity is moving production (and hence wealth generation) to Asia. So, I really hope that Pog is not that dumb or at least that he is not representative of his generation.

DrLoser, as usual, misses the point when he wrote, “he is using “unique” in a very particular sense! We, the readers, might assume he means “unique qualities compared to every other car out there!””

The important point it not “unique” but “anywhere”. The auto-makers can’t make those other cars anywhere but on an elaborate assembly-line in buildings covering acres and equipped with huge machinery. Solo, on the other hand, can be assembled anywhere a cottage industry can be set up: a flat spot of modest size and some hand tools are the only requirements other than people. It doesn’t even require a building although that would help security and keeping weather out. That kind of assembly really can be done anywhere. Deliver the parts to the place and watch cars happen. The low weight and low parts-count make Solo possible anywhere. The single seat make it easy to drive anywhere. There’s no need to have a left and right steering design.

It’s an international car. Its unique quality is that it can be assembled and driven anywhere, even countries that drive on the wrong side of the road.

I think you might be pushing “anywhere” to the point of meaningless there, Robert. Let’s be honest, there’s only the remote chance that it will ever be assembled anywhere other than in BC. And if you want to qualify that with the mealy-mouthed “can,” then, sure. It “can” be assembled in outer space. So can your wife’s SUV, or a Leopard tank, or for that matter a WW2-era battleship. As with the famous comment that “correlation does not prove causality,” in this case “possibility does not (remotely) suggest plausibility.”

In the world of “can,” my examples prove fairly conclusively that the Solo is not “unique” in that respect. In the real world, which is one you seem increasingly to wish to distance yourself from, it isn’t remotely unique, even on the two differentiations you mention.

Or do you mean that you, personally, will be able to drive your wretched little tricycle (which you will never acquire), “even countries that drive on the wrong side of the road.” I don’t think it has the range for Japan or the US Virgin Islands, Robert. And there’s nothing closer.

But wait! Robert is a cunning fellow, and he is using “unique” in a very particular sense! We, the readers, might assume he means “unique qualities compared to every other car out there!”

What you obviously mean, Robert, is that the Solo has practically no qualities whatsoever. And you are absolutely right: in the field of “qualities that might be possessed by a car,” the unique subset is indeed that you can build it anywhere and drive it anywhere. So, not unique to the set of cars at all. Merely unique to the subset of qualities that might be possessed by the Solo.

Those “generic” service stations that accept Canadian tire money, are known for shoddy service Robert.

For example, not using the proper fluids specified by the car maker will void your warranty, same goes with using non-standard tires, performance modifications and towing a trailer it was never designed for.

So you see, all the things you stated previously on your silly blog, will in effect, void your warranty, if there even is one. As EM only shows a warranty for the battery and nothing for body or the drivetrain.

Grece wrote, “What IS silly Robert, that EM could mandate that repairs be ONLY performed by a person that they allow, less their warranty is invalidated”.

I don’t know any car-maker which has such a provision. That’s why we have generic service stations all over the place. Further, many service manuals are sold to owners so they can do their own service. I’ve owned a few of those. There was nothing that invalidated the warranty.

What mechanic would not check the brake fluid or wheel bearings? Silly.

What IS silly Robert, that EM could mandate that repairs be ONLY performed by a person that they allow, less their warranty is invalidated. So not that pretty much closes out everyone else, including you!

Solo is in no way Canadian except EMV’s office is in Vancouver. Solo has input from US, Canada, Europe and China by way of parts and design. It’s an international car. Its unique quality is that it can be assembled and driven anywhere, even countries that drive on the wrong side of the road.

Grece wrote, “he does receive a SOLO after a few eons, and finds out that no mechanic will touch the damn thing.”

What mechanic would not check the brake fluid or wheel bearings? Silly. Solo uses a lot of COTS parts that mechanics will find easy. The electrics are another matter but they will rarely need service. For those you might instead consult an electronics technician. Swap parts and away you go.

This is the point where Pog starts droning on about how electrics need less maintenance yadda yadda, ignoring the fact the Solo (whatever few examples have unproduced so far) is banged out by hand in Jerry’s garage and uses a non-descript motor.

Even thought Robert will NEVER get a SOLO, I find it interesting that he wants a non-descript reverse big-wheel and always complains about having to fix thing on a vehicle. “The cost”…”The labor”…”woe is me!!”

Just wait, perhaps in one of the universe’s, he does receive a SOLO after a few eons, and finds out that no mechanic will touch the damn thing.

Still, EMV makes no misrepresentations about the product (not) being offered: A wretched little tricycle that doesn’t meet the safety standards of a car. Such “non-cars for idiots” were occasionally made even in post-war years, from the Reliant Robin to the Reva G-Wiz to the Morgan Three-Wheeler. All of them tapped into a niche that was willing to part with safety of a proper car for some unique quality. In case you are wondering, the Solo’s unique quality is that it is Canadian. For some reason, some people think that domestically manufactured cars (or non-cars in our case) are an expression of national pride, and Pog is one of them. He just doesn’t want to admit it. Otherwise, the Leaf is a much better deal in every way.

With the difference the Solo is a non-cars for idiots you can’t even buy.

Robert, comparing EM to Harley-Davidson is illogical, namely due to being founded in 1903 and having brand recognition. Additionally, Harley-Davidson has an envoy of lawyers at their beckon call. What does EM and Jerry have?

In Canada, Solo is classified as a Three Wheeled Vehicle and there is an extensive list of safety standards that apply.

Oh, really? That’s probably why it doesn’t have an airbag, a rigid roof, a passenger cage, any kind of crash rating or crumple zones designed with crash testing in mind, and many other things considered standard in actual electric cars.

The wretched little tricycle is not a car Pog and doesn’t meet the safety standards for a car, not that you will ever lay hands on one. This “refundable” deposit could have been better buying a baterry-less solar-powered torch or 10 remote-controlled Flying F?ck helicopters (the latter actually exists as a product and unlike the Solo is available for purchase and delivery on eBay).

kurkosdr wrote, “All these not-a-car “electric vehicles” classify as motorcycles, which means they come with safety standards befitting to a motorcycle, which is none at all.”

In Canada, Solo is classified as a Three Wheeled Vehicle and there is an extensive list of safety standards that apply. The most important aspects of Solo for me are that I don’t have to wear a helmet nor pick bugs out of my teeth driving it. Solo has a very comfortable seat, a good seat-belt and great visibility and manoeuvrability, things that will keep me safe.

Safety, my dear Doctor. All these not-a-car “electric vehicles” classify as motorcycles, which means they come with safety standards befitting to a motorcycle, which is none at all.

Back in those years before the Tesla Model S and the Nissan Leaf existed -when greenies held the Reva G-Wiz as the planet’s saviour- they liked to use the term “electric vehicle” in order to get around the fact the damn thing met no safety standards a vehicle marketed as a car replacement is expected to meet. You see, the G-Wiz was how these people imagined the modern electric car, that is small, slow, soddily built and designed with the assumption that driving is nothing but a chore that must be done, so they didn’t want to bother the public with little unimportant details such as safety standards.

But now that there are electric cars available for purchase, it boggles the mind why anyone would settle for a death trap of an electric vehicle and pay CAD20000 for the privilege and wait a literal decade for it to be delivered.

But you know, the heart wants what the heart wants. For example, the other week I bought an HTC HD2, an HTC TyTN II and an HTC S710, because WinMo was the only mobile OS I had never really laid hands on and wanted to see what the whole deal was about. With the difference I paid 70 pounds for the whole lot, had them delivered in two days, and they are not going to get me killed on the freeway…

Let’s be honest, the whole thing is all about enviromental feel-goodism (and controlling the number of cars on the road to ease “congestion”).

Let’s be even more honest. (It’s a novel concept for Robert Pogson, but there’s always a first time.)
The “whole thing” is about no having to shell out C$20,000+ for a car. Or even C$2,000 for a car. And for some reason, Pog is convinced that his C$250 (a piffling amount) is fully refundable, which means that he clearly does not understand bankruptcy laws.
And the “whole thing” is about Pog relying on his wife to drive him around in a gas-guzzling SUV, whilst pretending that he has a way out of this.
And the “whole thing” is predicated on the notion that, for reasons as yet unexplored, it is far, far, better to spend C$20,000 on a worthless little electric tricycle (on the charitable assumption that it will ever be delivered. But let us stipulate that assumption) that it is to spend C$12,000 on a Nissan Leaf.
Because, of course, why would you want all the extras that come with a Nissan Leaf? You know. Dealerships, comfort, an extra wheel, an extra (three) seats, baggage space, resale value, probably even a decent stereo that you can hear over the clatter of the Solo?
Have I missed anything here, Robert?
I don’t think I have.

Also, I just changed 4 tires for my SUV and the all-in cost are ~$700 CDN.

That is not the cost for calling a wrecker to you and having the car towed to a service station to replace said tire.

At one point the CEO said Solo will ship with a spare-in-a-can to compensate for no spare/jack and to save cost/weight/efficiency. That might work as well.

That’s a load of horseshit that will get people stranded in the middle of nowhere when they hit a pothole and bend a rim bad enough to break the bead. Fix-a-flat doesn’t do shit and these pinheads pushing it as a solution need to get it through their damned heads that spare tires are necessary.

Ivan wrote, “What good is saving a few dollars on fuel when you have to spend $500 to have someone replace a flat?”

Well, Solo will have fewer flats than the typical ICEd vehicle because it has 3 wheels instead of 4 and Solo weighs much less. Also, I just changed 4 tires for my SUV and the all-in cost are ~$700 CDN. Solo is very similar for changing tires. Jack it up. Cycle lug nuts. Work on the rim/tire. At one point the CEO said Solo will ship with a spare-in-a-can to compensate for no spare/jack and to save cost/weight/efficiency. That might work as well.

We already have several ARMed machines. There’s no rush as long as Beast keeps ticking over. TLW has already installed a bunch of small solar panels to provide outdoor lighting. She’s kind of ticked that the wind broke several but I will build bigger paper-weights to anchor the rest.

kurkosdr wrote, “Any kind of miniscule CO2 reduction in car emissions (say from 130g/km to 95g/km or even 0g/km) in new first-world cars will be as impactful to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as a gnat’s toot in a hurricane.”

Well, even if you don’t care about the CO2 what about the $billions in fuel-savings? I will save >$1K per annum and there are many millions of private automobiles out there. I just had mine in for repairs and it cost $285 just to keep it rolling.

Let’s be honest, the whole thing is all about enviromental feel-goodism (and controlling the number of cars on the road to ease “congestion”). Even if all cars in the first world became electric overnight, it wouldn’t do squat in the big scheme of things due to 1)all the cars in the second and third world which aren’t going to be upgraded soon (in fact, many current first world cars will end up there) and 2) countries like India and China not having binding CO2 targets. Any kind of miniscule CO2 reduction in car emissions (say from 130g/km to 95g/km or even 0g/km) in new first-world cars will be as impactful to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as a gnat’s toot in a hurricane.

Since these “emission and efficiency standards” result in more expensive cars, then Trump is doing what he has to do to protect America’s car culture (the US is a driver’s nation mostly, with the exception of some big cities, and you have no right to tell US citizens how they want to live Pog)

Let’s be honest, a 95grams of CO2 per km (to be in effect by 2021 in the EU) cannot be achieved without at least some hybridization of ICE engines, which increases costs, which makes car unaffordable to a part of the population that can afford ICE-only cars now. But hey, those people should take public transport instead, I bet the city planners love that. The individual probably won’t, but it is not about the individual, right? The individual lives to serve the state and the state’s “planners”.

Grece wrote, “you are an alleged Nuclear Physicist, that never worked in that industry”.

Strange that you should write that. ISTR designing particle accelerators and components for nearly a decade and published in the field. TLW has my parchments hanging on the wall of her office. Our honeymoon was to a place where I worked for three years making things radioactive in a hospital. Did some good work there. Saved lives.

Well, I hope business does not take the bait. Keep on keeping on folks. Move along. There’s nothing to see from the Trumpists. Let them run around in their ignorance. There will be no law forbidding you to make cars and trucks more efficient than your competitors. Just carry on.

You aspire for efficiency Robert, but has it ever occurred to you, that most of what you do and vent about on this blog, is totally inefficient? With that said, what do you know about business exactly? Did you earn a MBA in Nunavut studies?

Wait, you are an alleged Nuclear Physicist, that never worked in that industry, never even taught the subject but somehow ended up teaching computer science to a bunch of indigenous children of harpoon chuckers.

Every subject Robert injects Trump into the conversation without fail, strange that he never mentions Trudeau EVER! Why is that??

I’ll tell you why, Canada could not of elected a worse prime minister ever! Justin has been a complete nightmare and/or disaster. He has been a complete embarrassment to his country and it’s citizens. Trudeau, has accomplished nothing, aside from ethics violations, deficit spending and virtue signalling, and showing generally poor judgment in who he entertains. FACT!

My Mission

My observations and opinions about IT are based on 40 years of use in science and technology and lately, in education. I like IT that is fast, cost-effective and reliable. I do not care whether my solution is the same as yours. I like to think for myself.

My first use of GNU/Linux in 2001 was so remarkably better than what I had been using, I feel it is important work to share GNU/Linux with the world. I have been blessed by working in schools where students and school systems have benefited by good, modular software easily installed in most systems.

I have shown GNU/Linux to thousands of students and hundreds of teachers over the years and will continue in some way doing that until I die in spite of the opposition.